Re: Proposing Tracker for inclusion into GNOME 2.18

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:34 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> We can quibble about an odd metadata field not being present ad 
> infinitum and its unlikely we will have all possible values by
> default 
> in the spec but it does not matter as such because tracker is
> extensible 
> so theres no limit in adding extra items in future.

As a bloke who's had a bit of software included in the last gnome
release, I can tell you it's easier for the distros to ship something
and then argue that it should be part of Gnome, rather than the other
way around.

I've used beagle before and was impressed with the speed, but not
impressed with the memory usage. It also took up large chunks of my 2.2
gig processor when indexing so I wonder what it would do to a sub GHz
PC.

I've been trying tracker for the last few days, and I can confirm it
uses an order or magnitude less memory and doesn't seem to add
noticeable cpu load in normal use. Search results come up also very
quickly (<1s), but maybe not as quick as beagle. Both solutions find the
data that I'm looking for.

So for me, two thumbs up for tracker and one thumb up for beagle.[1]

I can't really comment on the C# vs C discussion although I know what I
would prefer running as a daemon. Either way, we need a search
*infrastructure* in GNOME soon, else we will fall very far behind OSX
and Vista.

Richard.

[1] I only have two hands, but you get the idea.